Take a look at Wallstreetwinnersonline.com

RickJ

It is clear from chapter 14 that the intent was for a miraculous victory – Saul’s major error in Chatper 13 was not usurping the priestly role – in fact, the offering of sacrifices by laymen outside the tabernacle was common then – but that he did not follow Samuel’s prophetic instructions for conduct of the war: instead he was concerned with the number of recruits.

Yet in Chapter 14 Saul’s own son Jonathan is miraculously victorious although outnumbered – this was the original plan.

Saul is given a second chance in Chapter 15. Look at verse 15:11 – far from competing with Saul, Samuel is grieved with God’s final decision, and pleads that it not be so.

It’s clear that in both situations, Saul’s leadership was lacking. There is very little evidence of political infighting with Samuel, as you implied.

From I Samuel 13:

“Samuel said, “What have you done?” Saul replied, “When I saw that the people were slipping away from me, and that you did not come within the days appointed, and that the Philistines were mustering at Michmash, I said, ‘Now the Philistines will come down upon me at Gilgal, and I have not entreated the favor of the LORD’; so I forced myself, and offered the burnt offering.” Samuel said to Saul, “You have done foolishly; you have not kept the commandment of the LORD your God, which he commanded you. The LORD would have established your kingdom over Israel forever, 14 but now your kingdom will not continue; the LORD has sought out a man after his own heart; and the LORD has appointed him to be ruler over his people, because you have not kept what the LORD commanded you.”

Later in the text, Samuel offers Saul a second chance, in which the events you recount take place. Clearly the first concern of Samuel is Saul’s overstepping his bounds in offering the burnt offering, which was Samuel’s duty.

If you maintain and hold military supremacy, religion becomes peaceful. If you don’t main military supremacy, then religion becomes violent.

All in all, Turkey is not a US ally and Bush should stop treating them as if they are. Bush needs to treat real allies like real allies, like maybe lobbying for Polish/Eastern Europe visa waivers with his so called ‘political capital’. Bush also needs to treat real enemies as real enemies. He is terrible at this. I don’t know if he is naturally this naive (one reason France stabbed him in the back, nobody with a clue in America trusts the French with anything) or if his advisers are all incompetents. But regardless, we are not going to get more allies if Bush reward Turkey, who tried to invade Kurdistan and take it over, contrary to our interests and the Kurd’s, who are our allies.

The problem in this war of ours, is rather simple. We give rewards to a lot of people, but we don’t punish anyone. It is asymptomatic of the judges in America saying they don’t believe in punishemnts. Bush, to me, seems to not believe that punitive expeditions and punitive repercussions are beneficial to American security interests.

If the nations of this world are not pushed for their actions when they try to harm the US, then the will keep on doing it. Regardless of the bribes and rewards we try to give them. Fear, as always, is far more beneficial to the United States of America than being “liked”.

Those who “liked us” didn’t prevent 9/11, it didn’t prevent Pearl Harbor, and it sure as heck didn’t save those Rangers in Somalia. Forget about being liked, America, it is time to grow up and graduate from High School. We’re beyond kiddy play here.

It’s a religious war the world is in. It is not a war which the West has sought & most political elements in the West have not comprehended its true nature but it is a war about which it will ultimately be impossible to be ignorant.

This war transcends borders; borders are nothing to Islam. The West is not fighting nations or governments or political leaders — it is fighting Islam. As we are seeing with the Rahman case, government in a Middle Eastern nation is merely an arm of Islam.

Someone mentioned Turkey. But Turkey seems to me to be secular in name only, like Saddam’s Iraq. When the chips are down Turkey is an Islamic state pretty much like the rest. Holding elections or the presence of a dictatorship does not mean the government is secular, because the society, including most of the individuals within the government, is still thoroughly non-secular in outlook & expectation. The prudent Middle Eastern elected body or dictator cooperates with Islam(as Saddam did), allows Islam full control of daily life within the state & a strong, perhaps decisive voice within government & policy formulations. If it quacks like a duck it is a duck.

Comparing our Christian fundamentalists to Islamic fundamentalists is like comparing a fart to a hurricane.

I’m not nearly as liberal, as our liberal hostess.

The gays trying to impose gay marriage, and the polygamists trying to impose polygamy, aren’t the secular humanists and nor are they the ones advising Afghanistan on their future path.

In point of fact, polygamy is what Afghanistan is trying to get away from, helped by America.

The United States cannot afford polygamy, but we have the institution of tolerance. Afghanistan has the institution of Shariah and Islam, and they cannot afford polygamy.

You might as well compare civic engineering with electrical engineering.